BrandDigital | BrandSimple: The Blog

There are no miracles in branding. There may be moments of what seem like divine intervention, but it takes work to build a brand. On the other hand, great branding can work miracles for a brand on the verge of success. The tale of Brother Curry’s dog biscuits is a case in point.

Brother Curry, a Jesuit priest with a Ph.D. in theatre history, combined his love of performance, his understanding of disability, and his calling to create the National Theatre Workshop for the Handicapped. He then founded a bakery to provide job-training for his students as well as income for the Workshop. Noting that dogs had served people with disabilities for years, he added a line of dog biscuits to his students’ baking repertoire. While the biscuits sold pretty well, there was a lot of competition for dog goodies. Brother Curry realized he needed to differentiate his product. He needed some inspired branding.

The fact that these dog biscuits were produced by disabled people as a way to reward their faithful companions, along with the fact that it provided jobs for those who made them, seemed nothing short of miraculous. As in miraculous benefits for all. As in Brother Curry’s Miraculous Dog Biscuits. The team at Landor, which was tapped for the project, had come up with the perfect branding aha! Like all the best brands, it was based on an idea that was different and relevant – and wonderfully simple. This, in turn, led to wonderfully appropriate branding, the name being just one divine element. It definitely got the right tails wagging.

Sales of the newly-branded Brother Curry’s Miraculous Dog Biscuits are up exponentially this year over last, so much so that the bakery had to put on extra shifts.

Ken Roman, former CEO of Ogilvy Worldwide, once said, “It’s always easier to take a success and make it bigger than to turn a problem around.” Brother Curry had a successful idea to begin with. The inspired branding simply made it bigger. There are no miracles in branding. But there is miraculous branding.

Had a delightful conversation with Dean Rick and the rest of the crew on the BrandShow on November 15th. These guys know their stuff and tossed some great questions at me. It’s worth a listen:

» Listen/Download the MP3

Whether they like to admit it or not, politicians are brands. Like all brands, they affix themselves to our psyches through “bumper sticker ideas.” Simple “sticky” associations we summon up whenever their names are mentioned. Nimble reductions of what they stand for with no details required. Whether we agree with a bumper sticker idea is not the point. It’s whether we “get it” and whether it’s gripping enough to stick.

For example, we got that FDR would give us a “new deal” and we got Reagan’s bumper sticker idea, cleverly posited as a question. “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Without a doubt, we also got – and continue to get – George W’s sticky idea. He likes the course he’s on. In fact, he’s stuck us with the notion that we’re “either on his side or the other side.” Which brings me to the inherent paradox created by bumper sticker ideas, whether they apply to political brands or traditional brands. Once they stick, it’s hard to peel them off mental bumpers. When people have your brand pegged one way or another, it’s hard to change their minds, whether you want to, or not.

So, what’s my advice for the political candidates of 2008? The easy part first. You need a brilliant bumper sticker idea. Given the way people think about brands, they’re required branding tools. The hard part? You need to get strategically focused and identify a simple promise people will care about for the long term.

None of this is rocket science. It’s plain and simple branding science. And while the obvious reality of all bumper sticker ideas is that there are no simple solutions to the complex issues they represent, they get our attention – for better or worse. So candidates, take heed. If you want people to “get it,” capture it in a bumper sticker idea. But before you do, make sure it’s something you’d like to be stuck with for the long term (or, at the very least, two terms).

Will making an airline bigger make it better? That’s the obvious question being asked by any number of people regarding the news about the US Airways bid for Delta. The answer is yes, if – and if.

The first “if” is the business “if.” If the merger between US Air and Delta creates operational efficiencies of scale then there’s a chance bigger could be better, for both the combined company and the passengers. In this case, bigger could solve some big business issues. (And, by the way, calling the new company Delta, given the fact that it’s a stronger name from a global perspective was a good first move.)

Okay, let’s say this is done successfully. The second “if” is the branding “if.”

The real challenge for those in favor of a merger between US Air and Delta is how to make the experience of flying this big, new airline relevantly different – relevant differentiation being the key to all successful brands. I’m not talking about flight attendant uniforms or in-flight entertainment. I’m referring to things that bring the new operating efficiencies to life for passengers. Things that have a tangibly positive impact on the entire flying experience, from the reservation process, to the routing choices, to the baggage retrieval. This is what really distinguishes one airline from another. In other words, if the tickets are cheaper and I’m treated like I bought the cheap seats, forget it.

If bigger fixes the business model, that’s good. If the new brand can’t figure out how to deliver bigger as better, that’s bad. While bigger may address the benefits of scale, if there’s nothing different about how the new airline executes bigger from a branding standpoint, the whole thing could be a big dud.

The key to winning as a technology brand is to promise a better mousetrap – and to deliver it, with all the kinks worked out. A better mousetrap has to do more than look good on paper. In its rush to wrest control of the living room from Xbox, and get its new and improved PlayStation 3 to market, Sony seems to have left a few critical kinks on the drawing board. As a result, the actual user experience of the PlayStation 3 has not met its promising expectations. Much as Sony wanted it to be, the product wasn’t quite ready for prime time playing. Not good when you’ve got a loyal brand audience ready to shell out $600 for new and improved.Nintendo, with its Wii, on the other hand, approached the gaming competition with a totally different sort of branding game plan. Change the category playing field. Literally. Get people up and off the couch. Forget what the others are trying to accomplish with their fancy graphics and go at gaming in a totally different way. Give users a wireless controller capable of detecting hand and arm motions in a way that allows them to physically control the action on the screen with more than just their thumbs. Moms are happy with the Wii because it mitigates their fears of having couch potato kids. Gaming enthusiasts are happy because it delivers the experience in a totally unique and exciting way. Nintendo is happy because it was able to get into the game on its own terms.

Nintendo, the original gaming leader, has become newly aware of the top two rules for brand success, especially in the technology world: 1) Do promise your audience something different, yet relevant. 2) Don’t promise what you can’t deliver. Nintendo didn’t set out to control the living room the way Sony wanted to. But, in meeting user expectations better than Sony did, it may have ended up winning the game.

I heard the AMA’s MPlanet event in Florida was great last week. Although I was not there, MarketingShift has done a nice job of recapping it all; see the coverage here.

The fashion world is tough. Branding in the fashion world, where it’s hard to differentiate on design or quality, is tougher. This seems particularly true, of late, in the world of fashionable watches. How can I tell? Copycat celebrity branding.

Yes, for lack of more innovative brand-building ideas, too many watch brands have reverted to using pretty faces to sell their pretty timepieces. Open any high-end magazine and you’ll see what I mean. Beautifully shot, two-page spreads of Eric Clapton, of Uma Thurman, of Nicolas Cage, of Kiefer Sutherland, of Meg Ryan. All wonderfully talented people, distinguished in their fields, but none doing an especially wonderful job at distinguishing one brand of watch from another. These folks are great borrowed interest, but borrowed interest isn’t great at building brands – especially when so many interests are being borrowed simultaneously. In other words, it’s time for some imagination.

We all know that using celebrities in branding and marketing is commonplace. To be successful, however the personality of the celebrity must be in sync with the personality of the brand. There has to be a credible reason for us to believe the celebrity’s spiel. Karl Malden was credible when he admonished us to take American Express Traveler’s Cheques on the road, for example. Wilford Brimley was credible when he admonished us to eat our Quaker Oats. As much as I appreciate a Clapton riff as much as the next guy, is this really a credible reason for me to appreciate Rolex watches more than other watch brands?

Celebrity branding should be considered the exception, not the rule, as a brand builder. It requires a long-term commitment on the part of the celebrity. More important, it requires compatibility. I’m willing to buy into John Travolta as a pilot, not an actor, endorsing Breitling’s “instruments for professionals.” But as for Uma and her Tag Heuer, or is that Nicolas and his Tag Heuer — when celebrity branding becomes copycat celebrity branding, it’s time to reconsider your branding tactics.